At our summit on global terrorism, Safe-Democracy.org attended by Kofi Annan and 34 heads of state there were two main schools of thought on the future of Al Qaida. The optimists who thought that Al Qaida had been dealt a lethal blow and that it was unlikely that it would strike again in Europe or America and the pessimists who thought that more attacks were only around the corner. Now we know: the pessimists won. Today we have a carnage in London, dozens dead, hundreds wounded, families and hearts broken. I write this, only after a few hours after the attack with a lot of the evidence not out yet but I assume that this was another "friends of Al Qaida" attack a la Madrid and that probably terrorists will soon demand that the UK leave Iraq. The question is then, should the UK follow Spain and leave Iraq or not?

The obvious answer would be to say that the UK should not leave. Leaving Iraq, the argument goes, would be rewarding terrorists and that is a mistake. While rewarding terrorists is a mistake in my view there is, however, a greater mistake, that of not leaving. The present war and occupation in Iraq is wrong, and continuation of this policy is wrong. President Zapatero realized this dilemma, and left Iraq after terrorists so requested. For doing that he was greatly criticized. Still, since the Spanish withdrawal there´s been peace in Spain.

I am horrified at the hundreds of innocent victims of London today, but I am also appalled at the 100,000 estimated civilian deaths that have occured in Iraq as a result of the US led Iraqi invasion. Placing bombs is mass murder, probably a crime against humanity, but in my view so is bombing civilian populations such as the failed search for Zarqawi in Fallujah that resulted in thousands of innocents dead. Why should placing bombs be illegal and bombing civilians from the air not be? If terrorism is the killing of civilians in order to attain political objectives, isn´t the US led invasion of Iraq insofar as it has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths also "terrorist". Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator now in jail, soon on trial. In that sense the US invasion was a success. There have been elections, there´s a new government in place. Why not leave Iraq instead of carrying on paramilitary operations ? Why continue waging an impossible to win war frequently violating human rights ? Can we really continue to make the case that there would be more death in Iraq if the US and the UK left? Wasn´t inevitable that the enemy would choose to fight in Western territory as they did today? Why give Al Qaida and other terrorist networks reason to do so? "Terrorists have no logic" commentators argue. Personally I would agree that they don´t if tomorrow there is another March 11th type of attack in Madrid after the withdrawal from Iraq. But since March 11th 2004 there hasn´t been one. And we do know that if there hasn´t been an attack is not because our security forces are efficient. Ground transportation is and will always be vulnerable to terrorism. Unde r ground passengers, bus passengers can´t be searched as airplane passengers, the y are easy targets. If there hasn´t been an attack in Spain since March 11th is only because of the uncomfortable decision President Zapatero made of withdrawing from Iraq, and I think that in a few monhts, and discreetly, Tony Blair should make the same choice.

Eleven Rules for Preventing and Combating Terrorism

1. Prevent radical individuals and groups from becoming terrorist
extremists, by confronting them with a mix of “carrot and stick” – tactics and search for effective counter-motivation measures.

2. Stimulate and encourage defection and conversion of free and imprisoned terrorists and find ways to alienate the terrorist organization from its constituency.

3. Maintain the moral high-ground in the struggle with terrorists by
defending and strengthening the rule of law, good governance, democracy and social justice.

4. Try to address the underlying conflict issues exploited by the
terrorists and work toward a peaceful solution while not making any
substantive concession to the terrorists themselves.

5. Establish an Early Detection and Early Warning system against terrorism and other violent crimes on the interface between organized crime and political conflict.

6. Deny terrorists access to arms, explosives, travel and identification documents, safe communication, safe travel and sanctuaries; disrupt their preparations and operations through infiltration, communication intercept, espionage and by limiting their criminal- and fund-raising potential.

7. Reduce low-risk/high-gain opportunities for terrorists to strike by enhancing transportation and communication security and by hardening critical infrastructures and potential sites where mass casualties could occur.

8. Prepare for crisis - and consequence-management for both “regular” and “catastrophic” acts of terrorism in coordinated simulation exercises and educate the public to cope with terrorism.

9. Enhance technical assistance against terrorism by strengthening the capacity of law enforcement, intelligence and the military of states which lack sufficient capacities while also enhancing internal and external coordination within and between states to deal more effectively with terrorist threats.

10. Since terrorism is a mix of violence and propaganda, counter not only the violence but also terrorist communiques, ideological writings and internet propaganda and respond to the language of hatred and violence by a well-argued counter-language of reason and humanity.

11. Since we all can become victims of terrorism and they bear no guilt for their fate, it is our obligation to acknowledge them, show solidarity with them and assist them, including through financial compensation. This will also contribute to strengthening the resilience of targetted societies.

1. The West must stop supporting autocrats in the Middle East and must support the democrats instead. Media attention in particular can play a key role. As said Saad Eddin Ibrahim " We democrats are only ever noticed when we are imprisoned"

2. There is a need to strengthen civil society as a means of
supporting the democrats

3. South/South cooperation can be far more effective than North/South
cooperation as a tool for monitoring the development of democracy in
the middle East

The laws of war do not need to be adjusted: current international law if properly interpreted is adequate to regulate conflict between states and terrorist groups. What is important to recognize is that the laws of war should not be stretched out of context to provide false authority for actions they do not really sanction; and also that fundamental human rights, including the right against prolonged arbitrary detention, and the right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, are binding at all times, whether during armed conflict or not.

There is a need for education reform to increase civil society participation. Empowerment of the people would come through education reform. Also, creative workshops/functions to create more interaction between peoples of different cultural backgrounds should be implemented.

The proliferation of WMDs can be summed up with:

Representation, Connection, and Prevention.

The Representation of women and minorities are necessary in such debates, particularly of Muslims.

There is a Connection between WMD and Religion/Nationalism. There is a proliferation of WMD in communities who feel strongly about religion and nationalism. They apply exclusivist interpretations to these terms in order to rationalize and justify the use of WMD against innocent people, or those whom their religious beliefs would not view as innocent.

Prevention should be the greater focus on the ideology of terror. The practical step is the local prevention of local terrorist acts through community-based groups. These groups would work in cooperation with security agencies because many locals who commit the acts have local support.

“The Formation of International Committee to Implement Democracy within Saudi Arabia and Greater Middle East”

Democracy has demonstrative effects in giving a voice to the people of society.

Under the UN, this committee would accept applications by countries on a case-by-case basis in Saudi Arabia and GME. Governmental and non-governmental members would participate. There would be punishments, including sanctions, to protect the committee. The goal would be to create a culturally sensitive democratic framework for a 10-year development plan from the ground-up.

Since terrorism is the last resort to express grievances, other forms to voice grievances are necessary. One forum could be a “Global SMS Network”, where one would have the ability to text message grievances to toll-free phone numbers. This idea is based on the fact that the number of cell phones in use today is passing one billion. These text messages would be collected at an independent global clearinghouse. From there, they would be sent to governments, journalists, etc. The messages could be acted on. The end result would be the spreading of information by providing direct access to those with grievances. It would be giving voices to the voiceless.

1)Independent institution that would organize/aggregate/provide the sources (knowledge, skills, tools, resources, etc.) to support local and indigenous groups and to provide for opportunities for independent development.

2)Create globalization on a global level to monitor and promote civil society around the world and work to give them space. The media would be focused on them so more people would know about them and would be less likely to be targets of aggression.

3) Create an organization that fosters promotion of civil society through interaction between corporate and civil society sectors by providing greater opportunities for equipment, materials, etc.

4) Develop workshops to explore and promote the opportunity for people to work in home countries and to work across communities to promote more democratic responses to problems.

5) A global town hall meeting using all available technological resources to provide the opportunity to expose and share the best grass roots practices. It would be based on the participation of the global civil society organizations sharing with the indigenous populations throughout world.

Some scholars speculate that US led military action in Iraq is spurring a pan-Arab backlash, causing thousands of Arab volunteers to gather today in Iraq; much the same way Arabs flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980’s. Taking this view further, some conclude that the Bush administration played into the hands of religious fundamentalists by offering them pan Arab nationalism as a recruitment tool. Osama Bin Laden seems to merge religion and national identity in his frequent referral to an Islamic caliphate.

Are Islamic terrorist groups like Al Qaeda driven by pan-Islamic nationalism, religious fervor, or a combination of both? What policies can be devised to deal with these two potentially converging forces?

The Geneva Convention presents a set of provisions guiding state conduct in conflicts with other nation states. The Geneva Convention does not apply to groups such as Al Qaeda, a non-state actor that targets civilians and disregards other laws of war. Exploiting the ambiguity in how to deal with non state actors, the United States labeled the first detainees at Guantánamo as “unlawful combatants,” denying them the traditional protections received by regular prisoners of war. Donald Rumsfeld challenged the current relevance of the Geneva Convention by stating:

“The reality is the set of facts that exist today with the al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Convention was fashioned.”

Can we develop a legal framework for dealing with non state actors that are not party to the Geneva Convention? Should the Geneva Accord be adjusted or updated?

As Bush’s recent trip to Europe confirmed, strong transatlantic ties are central to preserving global peace and stability. The nature of terrorist incidents and PR activities of terrorists, demonstrate that their actions, and even those of rogue states, are designed to exploit transatlantic divisions and sway public opinion and influence policy. The recent unified declarations by the United States and France vis-a-vis Syria demonstrate the potential power of transatlantic solidarity.

How can the United States and Europe forge a strategy that also balances other philosophical and political differences?

Recent events in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia demonstrate that internal reform can be mobilized at a grass roots level, independent from external political interference. In the fight against terror, the persuasive power of local NGO’s, civil groups and other grass root organizations is often overlooked. The strengthening of the civil society is vital in the War on Terror.

What roles can citizens play in strengthening democracy and fighting terror and what policies can Western democracies develop to encourage a greater civil role in promoting democracy? (Policy Debate)

Most people agree that the fight against terrorism and the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are top global priorities. Rogue states and other groups seek to obtain unconventional weapons. With the United States foreign policy preoccupied by Iraq, activities by North Korea or Al-Qaeda to obtains WMD constitute a significantly larger threat to the stability of the international system.

Denying proliferators WMD technology and expertise has been a central element to past non proliferation policy. Are there ways democracies can improve cooperation in fighting the spread of WMD and improve existing non-proliferation policies to prevent a terrorist organization from acquiring WMD?

Social scientist Malcolm Gladwell has written a well publicized book titled The Tipping Point, which refers to how a change in behavior or perception can reach a critical mass before suddenly creating a whole new reality. Thomas Friedman refers to this book in raising three simultaneously occurring Tipping Points: the Elections in Iraq, the murder of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and Sharon’s commitment to disengaging from the Gaza strip.

Do recent events in these three regions suggest the development of a new reality in the Middle East? What new policies should the United States and Europe adapt to respond to recent events?